tv [untitled] December 11, 2010 6:00pm-6:30pm PST
reduce our energy demand. the more efficiently we use our electricity, the less of it we will need to produce. san francisco has undertaken several major efforts to improve our energy efficiency, which the mayor referenced today. in summary, working in concert with the mayor's 100 percent sound noble task force, pg&e, city agencies, and renewable energy providers, the department of the environment is looking forward to leading this charge and ensuring that our city can be truly great live 100% renewable power by 2020, and i did want to thank the mayor for all of his leadership on this issue. thank you. >> thank you. i have been trying to figure out what the visual is. notice there are not a lot of gear is going on. it just sits there. there is two guys over there in orange vests you can barely see, and the mayor is going to talk
to them on the phone and tell them to flip the switch. [laughter] gavin newsom -- mayor newsom: are you guys paying attention? [laughter] all right. we will do a countdown. we will do five, for your -- you got that? you have not flipped it, yet, have you? 5. four. 3. two. one. with that switch -- flip that switch. [laughter] unbelievable. it is live. we are all done? it is done. it is working. it is official. [applause] >> thank you all very much. we're happy to answer questions if you have any, but it is
the consent calendar. >> this is for the period of january 1st, 2010, through november 30th, 200010, and january 1st, 2009, through november 30th, 2009. then the acceptance of an award by the policemen of the year. the police commission disciplinary case summary as of december 1st, 2010. >> we will start with the whole first item. to the commissioners have anything that they would like to discuss regarding the report? >> thank you, president. no, there's nothing i would like to discuss.
>> the second item is the sentence of the reward for the policemen of the year. commissioners, you also have this in your packet. any questions or comments regarding that? >> yes. >> you can donate the award. how common is it for officers to express even a small amount of questions. >> officers occasionally receive
rewards like this and according policies brought to the commission's attention, but they make their own decision based on the merits of the reward. >> any further questions regarding this. >> the statistical summary as of december 1st, 2010, dunhill will note that compared to last year and the year before, these numbers are down significantly and i would like to thank the opportunity to thank the commissioners for working the case loads and the staff for making it possible to have these hearings. thank you for the management control. these numbers are 100 times better than what they have been in the past. we would like to say a special thank-you to professor hammer who has consistently had hearings on these?
>> each case is only assigned to one number slot. for example, is not going to appear in the disposed of year to date column or line if it was a settled case, is that correct. >> sure. >> this is through december 1st. these are included in the total of 19 for that year. >> that is included in the line- item. is this also included in the disposed? >> these are the different types of dispositions. cunh>> thank you.
we have reviewed all three items. progress is being dealt out well the case is continually being defined. this is not like anything stops and you get to jump into the pool. >> in reference to line item one, do i have a motion to accept these items? >> so moved. >> seconded. >> is to any public comment regarding these items? >> hearing none, do i have a motion? >> so moved. >> seconded. >> all in favor. let's go on to mine that and
number two, public comment. >> members of the public may address the police commission for a time not to exceed three minutes. >> do we have any public comment regarding matters which are it within the public matters of the commission? >> i would just like to have a news release document regarding a lecture magnetic weaponry. i thought want to have this information. >> thank you. any further public comment? >> good evening, commissioners. i am a private investigator from santa rosa, california.
this pertains to what we call the achilles heel of the new world order. this is addressed to the san francisco police lt. who is charged of internal affairs, care of inspector teller. we have three other people who are with us as witnesses and also discussing things with them. regarding many violent crimes against young children covered up by the san francisco police department including murders with witnesses. for the past 25 months, several of those including residences of san francisco and los angeles county, the retired fbi chief of
los angeles, has been covering most of southern california. they have been attending many meetings and reporting to the commission, to the chiefs of police and their top management teams that they have repeatedly choose-chosen to not investigate. why did the fbi ordered the investigators to halt their investigations of the army's special forces. enclosed are copies of the letters plus a list of exhibits including a copy of each exhibit that we delivered and we had
many different people here who copied this. why a my san francisco friend, christine harris, has been hit by electronic weapons numerous times in your city by a an officer. you have refused to investigate the crimes. we'll go into great detail. the bottom line is that the chief's deputy assigned two detectives to help us solve these murders and these crimes and yet the detectives refused to contact us for months and so they assign someone else to investigate. why are they covering this up? >> thank you very much. >> i have some things here for
you. this is from the u.s. attorney general. >> line item 3. >> could evening. i would like to echo a comment by mr. have land. you're working on the dna tests, that was your idea, now they will do it. you were for front on the crime lab and the dna and you should be commended. you should be the next g8. sadly, that will not happen. on another note, the sfc website has listed a personal
attack against a reporter from the san francisco examiner on a possible misstatements that she either misinterpreted, contradicted themselves in the chronicle and then they turn around and take a slap at the examiner. i think it is kind of tacky. >> we now move onto line item number3. >> item number3 are reports to the commission. the first is the cheese report. then the revision to the general order. >> good evening, assistant chief. can you give us an brief update of recent activities? >> we have a presentation on the department bulletin. i can give you a rundown of the
most recent crime statistics. they continued to stay down 8%. by the crimes are down 3%. there are 3200 less crimes and there was in 2009. homicides, 46 this year versus 44 last year. >> any questions regarding the crime statistics? now we will move into the discussion regarding the department of bulletin, 10-156 regarding the discharge of firearms. mortared to curly, the issue that has been raised by fellow commissioners about discharging a firearm and moving vehicles. that can you give us some background on what has been happening? >> good evening, commissioners.
i am with the internal affairs division. i just wanted to give you an update regarding the department bulletin and also explain a little further in terms of where the department is at. the department bulletin was a party bolten issued at the department of the general order which covers the use of fire by the officers. this was last or guided in 1995. we are currently working on an entirely new -- discharge in at
or from and using vehicle is listed under prohibited circumstances. it was not prohibited when the circumstances found under the three major circumstances. the executive research forum for the assessment report they did in december, did fascinate recommended that for the language be added to clarify our policy. our own here study completed in january of this year also made recommendations for this issue. the stick of the study at the five areas for improvement including driving -- to incorporate driving tactics. the hope is that this would be useful. this is currently prohibited but this is concurrent and something that will be in the near future.
it would provide officers with valuable tools to keep these for being used offensively. it concluded that firing at a moving vehicle presented a number of risks. studies show the potential benefits are few. other major police departments have policies that restrict this practice. the language you have seen comes from several different sources including two reviews. in regards to the new use of firearms, we are currently working on the project right now. we have examined other policies. we have drafted a proposal and we're ready to present to our command staff for review.
i am happy to answer any questions that you have. i want to point out that the revisions will encompass some of the changes that have been addressed through department bulletin that we are discussing right now. the department a general order was overdue to be revised anyway. >> ok. thank you, sergeant. i will turn it over to the commissioner was very active in this issue. we should make clear to the public that there is a general order and just as a temporary fix, there has been a departmental bulletin.
maybe you should explain that when this is issued, how do we guarantee that every officer has seen this and read this? >> this was an important bulletin meaning that all of the officers are actually required to sign for it. this is data done june 3rd in 2010. due to the fact that we will revise the use of firearms policy in the near future, this will encompass changes that we have already looked at. the bulletin takes effect as current policy because the cements the general order while the general order is in the revision process which is now. what you see in the bulletin is current policy in regard to our apartment. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i have a few questions.
the issues have come to our attention because this has been happening with some frequency where officers are in dangerous situations and they have been firing at vehicles. the general practice has been to avoid this situation, but. there's a problem with a 3,000 pound or 4,000 pound missile hurtling which no one driving. there's nothing here to be in either or situation, in that police have to give up their safety and sort of become a sacrifice. is that correct? >> that is correct. anything that has to do with the use of force and that includes firearms, will be looked at under the fourth amendment reasonableness standard. we will look at everything on it case by case basis and look at all the factors.
the two nuances that i read in this bulletin become important. an officer has the right to use deadly force if his or her life is in danger, is that correct? >> yes. >> rather than standing his or her ground and she did at a car -- and shooting at a car, this directs officers, if they can come to get out of the way rather than trying to shoot and stand their ground. >> yes, the major plan would
stand out in the bulletin, the firearms will not be discharged unless a person is immediately affecting the officer or another person with deadly force. the other item that ec talks a lot of reasons why there is tactical disadvantage to engaging a moving vehicle. this gets into moving to an area of safety, moving to an area of cover. >> the idea is for the officers to move out of the way rather than standing his or her ground. that sounds like a major new ones. >> what your seeing in the bulletin, that is something that is important for training purposes. we have officers better training. we are trying to explain that there are tactical disadvantage to engage in these threats and that cover is an option that we want our officers -- >> how long have you been a
police officer? >> 15 years. >> did you think that you could stand your ground? >> to be honest, it confused me because this was listed under prohibited circumstance. if you read the specifics of the language, if it falls under the permissible circumstances, this is permitted. i was always confused. there is reason why it is under prohibited circumstances, but after the same time they said that if it falls under the permissible circumstances, it would be okay. i was confused by the language. >> that is why i'm insistent that we bring this to the commission and hopefully our officers can hear the policy. the officer should have the right to do whatever they need to to protect their lives.
the question is how to maximize citizens on the street. in any use of force review, anything is judged on a case by case basis. i have yet to see two shootings that are identical. there are differences for every other shooting. i am reminded of that every single time i go to the casino because there's always something new. this is consistent with what the supreme court told us to do.
>> the policy was confusing. as discontinued? >> it has not been found >> when the bulletin came out, i was one of the first officers. i was involved in the it is officers training. we immediately if icing people of the report and recommendations that came out of for the bulletin. at this point, we're explaining that here is what the chiefs signed off on. we're trying to give the officers they had sought on what is coming down the pipe in town
the -- down the pipe. we want to make sure that officers understand under training well. >> i would just ask and that we do about -- this is really our province to consider this in public comment and a vote on this. i think that we should do this as soon as possible in january. in either or. no one is trying to tie the hands of the officers to defend themselves, but how do we do this in a way that is not cause injury to the innocent life? but we have been getting this with training. >> that was your answer when he
started talking. this is six months ago. i'm wondering why this is wonden now -- >> we ask for it to be brought before the commission. commissioner davis: i wonder why it wasn't a sooner. shouldn't we just pass new rules? >> and the general order to affect july 14 and it was five weeks after the bulletin was issued. commissioner davis: it is not retroactive, right? >> as of june 3, 2010 to where we are right now. commissioner davis: in terms of
behavior that has gone on so far. if the behavior that was inconsistent and before this issue, it is not in violation of this order and is not a retroactive -- >> the bulletin is not retroactive. >> when can we expect the dgo? and are you going to confirm with the occ? >> they will shepherd this whole thing through the process. the role that we were playing was to actually go out and put something on paper. we are very far along in that process and we are ready to meet with the command of our department. at that point, they are going to ensure